just as another data point, one of the reasons Richard and I developed
the axiomatic semantics for DAML+OIL was that we needed a set of axioms
to put in our FOL reasoner (JTP was a hybrid KIF-based reasoner that
supported special purpose axiom sets to be put in to produce special
purpose reasoners).
we simply needed the axiom set to do our work.
(and as peter pointed out earlier, we did that work before the RDF
semantics documents came out so the work required best guesses when we
were attempting to make some issues precise enough to put into axioms).
after doing the work, we received some number of comments from other
groups who also needed axiom sets saying they found the work quite useful.
deborah
ps. i will need to call in late today as i have a meeting with the
provost. i expect jim to represent rpi on the call today.
Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>
> Ivan Herman wrote:
>
>> So if such set of entailement rules were available for OWL Full (even
>> if informative, even if imprecise in some corner cases) that would be
>> really good in my view...
>>
>> My 2 cents
>>
>
>
> My understanding is that one of Herman's initial motivations for
> developing the pD* semantics was to provide a large OWL subset that is
> implementable by entailment rules.
>
> We seem to be carrying this work forward in OWL Prime.
>
> I feel that it is with this fragment that we should satisfy the
> understandable desire of some parts of the community to have a rule
> driven definition of some substantial part of OWL
>
> Jeremy
>